WHAT FOLLOWS IS A SHORT SUMMARY OF THIRTEEN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER AND THE DEGREE OF PROTECTION THAT EACH GIVES TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
It is not intended to be comprehensive but to point to where the problems may lie and to indicate solutions.
In preparing this chapter – and indeed this booklet – we recognise that in matters of human rights there is a considerable gap between the theory and the practise.
The written safeguards are there. The challenge is to translate them into real freedoms that make it possible for people to live happy lives untroubled by discrimination and harassment.
Generally speaking, the more stable and democratic a nation is, the more its officials observe the human rights protections embodied in their country’s fundamental laws. Government officials in countries with a history of totalitarianism are the ones most likely to flout human rights laws. These violations are often justified by specious arguments such as “They call themselves a religion, but they are really not one.”
The answer is the one given by the European Court of Human Rights in Manoussakis v. Greece in September 1996. The State has no business adjudicating what is or is not a religion. It is enough that a body of believers sincerely hold themselves to constitute a religion.
This ruling is consistent with the policy of the Council of Europe as articulated in a study by its Human Rights Directorate that the term “religion” is “unqualified” as “the protection of the right to freedom of religion is not confined to widespread and globally recognised religions, but also applies to rare and virtually unknown faiths. Religion is thus understood in a broad sense.”
Nearly all European countries have constitutions, laws or traditions which protect human rights. The theoretical freedoms are there. The challenge is to translate them into real freedoms that make it possible for people to live happy lives untroubled by discrimination and harassment.
While this may seem to provide an overly broad interpretation of religion, the consequence of allowing the State to define the parameters of religion is seen in history. By appearing to give official sanction to the idea that minority religions are “not recognised”, the State provides discrimination fertile ground. The logical deduction of nonrecognition, for most people, is that the beliefs and practises of minority religious members are not deserving of the rights granted to established religions.
As the European Court noted in Manoussakis, seemingly innocuous government action restricting the rights of minority religions operates as a “lethal weapon against the right to freedom of religion.”
In 1997, a major study entitled Freedom of Religion and Belief: A World Report was published by the University of Essex Human Rights Centre, one of the most prominent human rights centres in Europe. This study by religious experts around the world specifically found that new religions must be treated in the same manner as traditional religions:
“Freedom of religion is therefore not to be interpreted narrowly by states, for example, to mean traditional world religions only. New religions or religious minorities are entitled to equal protection. This principle is of particular importance in light of the evidence reflected in the Country entries, including those of the European section, revealing that new religious movements are a recurring target for discrimination or repression.”
Government interference with minority religious beliefs and practises creates a climate in which religious persecution becomes the order of the day. It is these considerations, amply demonstrated in history, that led to the formulation of a body of international law to preserve religious freedom from intrusion by the State and to establish religious pluralism.
The State only has the right to interfere where public policy has been violated and then on an individual basis, not against the entire body of believers. In European countries, no one would think of indicting the Catholic Church because one of its priests was accused of misbehaviour. A minority religion should not then be held responsible civilly or criminally because of alleged transgressions by a single or a few individuals.
Continued...
| Previous | Glossary | Contents | Next |
| Your View | Related Sites | Home page |
humanrightsofficer@scientology.org
© 1999-2004 Church of Scientology International. All Rights Reserved.